FW: [NFPA] Economic benefits of recovery deleted from USFWS bull trout report

 
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Matthew Koehler
Sent: April 15, 2004 7:54 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [NFPA] Economic benefits of recovery deleted from USFWS bull
trout report


Economic benefits of recovery omitted from bull trout report
By SHERRY DEVLIN of the Missoulian

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deleted information from a recently
released economic analysis of bull trout recovery that showed $215
million in benefits associated with a healthy bull trout fishery.

Instead, the analysis reported only the costs of protecting bull trout
and its habitat in the Columbia and Klamath river basins - up to $300
million over the next decade.

Gone from the analysis, written by Bioeconomics Inc. of Missoula, were
55 pages extolling the potential benefits of bull trout recovery: a
robust sport fishery, reduced drinking water costs, irrigation and
in-stream flow benefits, improved quality of life and benefits to other
fish species.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, an agency spokeswoman in Denver
confirmed the information's removal, but could not explain the decision.

"The removal was a policy decision made at the Washington level," said
Diane Katzenberger, an information officer in the Fish and Wildlife
Service's Denver office. "It did not come out of Denver or Portland."

Katzenberger could not say who made the decision or how it was
justified. And repeated telephone messages left for officials in the
agency's Washington office went unanswered, as were messages left at
Bioeconomics Inc.

The censored analysis was released by the Missoula-based Alliance for
the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan, the two environmental
groups that forced the federal government to list bull trout as a
threatened species, then to designate "critical habitat" throughout the
Columbia and Klamath basins.

"This is so blatantly dishonest," said Michael Garrity, executive
director of the Wild Rockies group. "They simply chose to hide the
benefits of bull trout recovery from the public. They misled the
American public."

In a letter to the region's bull trout coordinator, Garrity demanded
that the missing chapter be restored to the economic analysis and that
the public be given a chance to comment on the uncensored document.

By releasing a cost-benefit analysis minus the benefits chapter, the
Fish and Wildlife Service "violated the law and insulted the
intelligence of the American public," Garrity said in a letter to John
Young, the agency's Portland-based bull trout coordinator.

"Economic impacts can be both positive and negative, and by eliminating
the positive impacts you have inappropriately skewed the analysis," he
wrote.

In Denver, Katzenberger defended the censure by citing "the difficulty
of assigning a dollar value to a biological benefit."

"We know the costs of consultation and of road upgrades and culvert
replacements," she said. "We don't know the dollar value of biological
benefits. And no matter what, it would be a comparison of apples to
oranges."

The deleted analysis was, however, detailed in its evaluation of the
potential sport fishery created by restoration of healthy bull trout
runs.

"The re-establishment of this fishery is expected to be the primary
direct benefit" associated with the species' recovery, the analysis
said.

Using per-day fishing values of $17 and $50, the economists suggested
benefits of up to $215 million for a recovered bull trout fishery.

"Bull trout were a species that was, at one time, sought by anglers
across the Pacific Northwest," the report said. "Now bull trout can only
be legally harvested in a few waters."

In part, economists used data on angler interest in past bull trout
fisheries to estimate the future potential. The best available data was
from Montana and dates to the 1960s.

In Montana and Idaho, bull trout were commonly called "salmon trout" and
were often the biggest and most easily caught fish in many waters, the
analysis said.

In a story for Montana Outdoors magazine in 1959, writer Martin Onishuk
dubbed bull trout as the "poor man's salmon."

Onishuk wrote: "Anyone familiar with the thrill of having a rod doubled
by a wild and powerful fish needs no explanation of the worth of the
Dolly Varden."

The economists added: "Angler preference studies generally indicate that
catching large fish is a relatively high-ranked motive in choice of
fishing location."

In a 1986 survey of 2,173 Montana anglers, 61 percent said "catching
large trout" was "very important" or "important" and that "catching wild
trout" was "important" or "very important."

Fish and Wildlife Service officials did not mention the deleted benefits
chapter when they released the economic analysis last month.

In fact, when asked why the report did not include any discussion of
benefits, they insisted the Endangered Species Act asks only for an
analysis of the costs of designating critical habitat for an at-risk
species.

Once approved, though, the economic analysis will be used by Interior
Secretary Gale Norton to determine whether the costs of recovery exceed
the benefits in some portions of the trout's habitat in Montana, Idaho,
Washington and Oregon.

And Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne has already asked the agency to review
the status of bull trout regionwide, hoping it will be taken off the
list of federally protected species and turned over to state fisheries
managers.

Concern for the fish's future led an anonymous employee of the Fish and
Wildlife Service to leak a copy of the deleted chapter to
environmentalists, who then gave it to reporters.

In addition to direct costs associated with a renewed bull trout
fishery, the analysis touted a number of benefits that cannot be
quantified - including "existence value."

"Recovery of the bull trout population may also lead to enhanced
existence value, which reflects the utility the public derives from
knowledge that a species continues to exist," the analysis said. "A
number of published studies have demonstrated that the public holds
values for endangered and threatened fish species separate and distinct
from any expected direct use of the species."

For example, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of western
Montana intend to spend $18 million on the recovery of a bull trout
fishery in the Jocko River because of its cultural importance.

Projects that benefit bull trout habitat also benefit other trout
species, in-stream flows and water quality in lakes and streams, the
analysis said.

Bull trout need cold, clean water and a natural hydrograph to survive
and thrive.

Reporter Sherry Devlin can be reached at 523-5268 or at
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]



If you're interested

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will take public comment through May
5 on its draft economic analysis of the potential cost of designating
critical habitat for bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath river
basins. The economic analysis is posted on the Web at
pacific.fws.gov/bulltrout. A public information meeting is planned from
noon to 4 p.m. Saturday at the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks office,
490 N. Meridian Road in Kalispell. Written comments should be mailed to:
John Young, Bull Trout Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services, 911 N.E. 11th Ave., Portland, Ore. 97232, faxed to
503-231-6243, or e-mailed to

_______________________________________________
heads mailing list
[email protected]
http://ballistichelmet.org/mailman/listinfo/heads/
http://ballistichelmet.org/donate/